Curtis Engineering Corp. v. Superior Court, D072046

On May 5, 2014, George R. Sutherland was injured in a crane accident; two-year statute of limitations for negligence expired May 5, 2016.
Sutherland filed an original complaint naming Curtis Engineering on May 3, 2016 but did not file the certificate required by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 411.35.
On December 1, 2016 Sutherland filed a first amended complaint identical to the original except it attached a § 411.35 certificate of merit.
Curtis demurred, arguing the certificate was untimely because § 411.35 requires the certificate be filed "on or before the date of service" or, if an excuse certificate under § 411.35(b)(2) is used, the certificate of merit must be filed within 60 days after filing the complaint.
The trial court overruled the demurrer treating the amended complaint and attached certificate as relating back to the original filing date; Curtis sought writ relief.
The Court of Appeal held the certificate filed with the amended complaint did not relate back, sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and directed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a § 411.35 certificate of merit filed with an amended complaint more than 60 days after the original complaint (and after statute of limitations) may "relate back" to cure initial noncompliance	Sutherland: relation-back doctrine applies because amended complaint is same as original; Legislature didn’t explicitly forbid relation back; barring relation back defeats meritorious claims based on formality	Curtis: statute plainly requires certificate filed "on or before" service; § 411.35(b)(2) gives a limited 60‑day exception if an excuse certificate is filed; allowing relation back would nullify those timing rules	The court held relation-back does not apply to cure the untimely certificate; failure to file within the statute or the 60‑day window is incurable and demurrer must be sustained without leave to amend
Whether the attached certificate was otherwise sufficient	Sutherland: (implicitly) certificate cures defect when filed	Curtis: certificate must contain the consulting expert’s opinion as § 411.35(b)(1) requires	Court noted the certificate also lacked the expert opinion required by § 411.35(b)(1), reinforcing that dismissal was proper

People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co., 24 Cal.4th 415 (2000) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., 56 Cal.2d 596 (1961) (relation‑back doctrine basics)
Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383 (1999) (relation‑back requires same general set of facts, accident, injuries, instrumentality)
McVeigh v. Doe 1, 138 Cal.App.4th 898 (2006) (construing similar 60‑day exception and timing of certificates)
Doyle v. Fenster, 47 Cal.App.4th 1701 (1996) (late certificates held untimely absent statutory excuse)
Price v. Dames & Moore, 92 Cal.App.4th 355 (2001) (curable defects in certificate form may permit leave to amend when filed timely)